Article 2o. In order to gain access to the benefits of this law, it is necessary that the abduction, hostage taking and enforced disappearance occur for as long as the person is disabled, in accordance with the provisions in force, to exercise a public employment or professional activity on the basis of the position it was carrying out.

PARAGRAFO. The inability to treat this article at any time should be understood as the product of penalties imposed by the competent authorities for violation of the provisions in force.

Article 3or. For the application of the benefits granted by Law 986 of 2005 to the victims of the crimes of kidnapping, hostage-taking and forced disappearance of their work, the reference will be made to the an updated salary that accrues to the person who carries out the charge, in the year immediately preceding the time of the deprivation of liberty, applying the increases established by the law.

PARAGRAFO. The resources with which the benefits provided for in this law will be covered, will be in charge of the entity to which the public server was providing its services.

3.4. For a second debate in the Senate of the Republic, Senator Armando Benedetti Villaneda was appointed. The lecture for the second debate in the Senate of the Republic was published in the Congress Gazette number 158 of March 25, 2009_[5].

3.5. The project was discussed and approved in compliance with the constitutional, legal and regulatory requirements in the session held on 26, 2009,stated in the Act No. 54 of that date, published in the i_aj">Congress Gazette number 570 of July 13, 2009_[6].

The same report certifies that such approval was made prior to its announcement, made at the Plenary Session of May 20, 2009, as stated in the Minutes 53 corresponding to that meeting, published in the I_aj">Congress Gazette number 569 of July 13, 2009, in which it reads:

" On the instructions of the Presidency and in accordance with Legislative Act No. 01 of 2003, the Secretariat announces the projects to be discussed and approved at the next session: (...) Bill 86 of 2008 Senate (...) ".

And at the end of the session you can see:

" Being 7:25 p. m., the Presidency lifts the session and convenes for the day Tuesday 26 4e May 2009, at 3:00 p. m "_[7].

3.6. The bill was referred to the First Permanent Constitutional Commission of the House of Representatives, whose board of directors appointed as Ponentes the Representatives William Velez Mesa (Coordinator), Carlos Fernando Motoa, Guillermo Rivera Florez, Carlos Enrique Soto and Jorge Humberto Mantilla.

3.7. The paper report and the proposed text for the first debate in the First Commission of the House of Representatives was published in the Congress Gazette number 1082 of October 23, 2009_[8].

3.9. The project was discussed and approved without modification by the said Commission during the session on November 24, 2009, as stated in the Act number 16 of that date, which appears published in the Congress Gazette number 1279 of December 11, 2009_[9] approval was given by roll call unanimously "with 22 votes for yes and zero votes for no"_[10] and was previously announced, pursuant to article 8or Legislative Act 01, 2003, at the First Commission session of the House of Representatives, which took place on November 10, 2009, as stated in the Act No. 15 for that session, published in the Congress Gazette number 154 of 23 April 2009 2010_[11]. In announcement, it was done in the following terms: President:

" Yes, Mr. President, it is announced for the next session: (...) The Bill 366 of 2009 House. Mr President, on your instructions, the Projects for the next ordinary session " have been announced.

3.10. In the second debate in the Chamber, the representatives of William Velez Mesa (Coordinator), Carlos Femando Motoa, Guillermo Rivera Florez, Carlos Enrique Soto, and Jorge Humberto Mantilla were appointed again. The keynote for the second debate in this legislative chamber was published in the Congress Gazette number 1247 of December 3, 2009_[12].

3.11. According to the substantiation report by the Secretary General (e) of the House of Representatives_[13], the draft was discussed and approved in the fourth debate, in the session held on December 14, 2009, as it was Sign in Act No. 226 of that date, published in the Congress Gazette number 89 of April 6, 2010_[14]. The same report certifies that such approval was made prior to its announcement, made at the Plenary Session of December 10, 2009, as stated in the Act No. 225 corresponding to that meeting, which was published in the i_aj">Congress Gazette number 66 of July 17, 2008_[15], which reads:

" Yes, Mr. President. The projects are announced for the next Monday, December 14, or for the next session in which bills are discussed and discussed. Madam Deputy Secretary, please announce the projects (...) Bill number 366 of 2009 House, 086 of 2008 Senate (...) The Plenary Session was lifted at 1:45 p. m. and was called for the day Monday, December 14, 2009 at 2:00 p. m. ".

3.12. Through his office dated December 16, 2009, received at the Administrative Department of the Presidency of the Republic on December 21, the same year, the Secretary General of the Senate of the Republic referred the bill to the President. of the Republic for its executive sanction_[16].

3.15. By its own initiative dated December 30, 2009, the bill was returned by the National Government to the then President of the Senate of the Republic, in the corresponding executive sanction, for objections of unconstitutionality. The President published the project objected to in the Official Journal number 47,578 of December 30, 2009. The statement of objections was received at that Corporation on December 30, 2009_[17] published in the Congress Gazette number 19 of January 28, 2010_[18].

3.16. By letter dated April 21, 2010, Senator Luis Elmer Arenas and representatives William Velez Mesa and Jorge Humberto Mantilla submitted a report on the government objections to the bill, in which they requested their rejection_[19]. This report appears published in the Congressional Gacts number 152 of April 23, 2010_[20] and 147 of April 23, 2010_[21].

3.17. According to a substantiation report by the Secretary General of the House of Representatives_[22], that legislative corporation considered and approved the report of objections at its plenary session held on May 4, 2010 (Acta 238, pub1icada at the Congress Gazette number 299 of June 4, 2010_[23]), prior to its announcement at the plenary session held on April 28 of the same year, according to Acta 237 published in the i_aj">Congress Gazette number 269 of May 28, 2010_[24].

3.18. According to a substantiation report signed by the Secretary General of the Senate of the Republic_[25], the previous report was considered and approved by the Plenary of the Senate on May 11, 2010 (Acta No 36, published in the Congress Gazette number 281 of June 1, 2010_[26]), prior to its announcement at the May 4 plenary session of the same year, according to minutes 35, published in the Congress Gazette number 280 of June 1, 2010_[27].

3.19. The Magistrate, Profirio, said on June 3, 2010, that he had known the government objections and asked the General Secretariat of the Senate of the Republic and the House of Representatives to send the certifications on session dates, deliberative quorum and decision making, announcements and voting results, as well as a copy of the Congressional Gacts in which the minutes of the proceedings are published. plenary sessions in which the report of objections was approved and in which the respective prior to the debate and vote. The General Secretariat (E) of the

House of Representatives, by trade of 9 June 2010, and the Secretary-General of the Senate of the Republic, on its own initiative of 8 June 2010, referred some of the requested evidence.

3.20. The Full Court of the Constitutional Court, by Auto number 124 of June 16, 2010, failing to find all the necessary tests to study the processing of the governmental objections of the reference, resolved to abstain from decide until the required constitutional and legal budgets to do so are not met, and ordered that the necessary Congressional Gacetas be referred to in order to determine, based on the relevant evidence, if for the approval of a report of government objections the established procedure; the Secretaries-General of the Senate of the Republic and the House of Representatives, who will accept and send all the required documents, will be awarded.

3.21. By means of offices of 27 June and 3 September 2010, signed by the Secretary General of the House of Representatives and the Secretary General '1of the Senate of the Republic, respectively, copies of the Congress' Gacetas were released. required.

4. Content of presidential objections

4.1. By communication of 30 December 2009, the President of the Republic, with the signature of the Minister of Finance and Public Credit, formally presented a memorial of presidential objections to " some of the Articles "of Bill number 086 of 2008 Senate, 366 of 2009 Chamber, " by means of which benefits are granted to the families of persons kidnapped after the exercise of their office "_[28], objections that were declared unfounded by the Senate and House plenary. It should be noted that the statement of objections does not specify what the objectionable articles of the bill are, so the analysis will be carried out in relation to the project in general. The objections were raised as follows:

4.2. The National Government estimates that the project violates article 7or Law 819 of 2003 as it is contrary to the medium-term fiscal framework.

4.3. The executive points out that under the aforementioned rule, the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit gave an unfavourable concept by trade of 14 December 2009. It indicated that the project " implies additional costs between $637 and $5,403 million, at constant prices in 2009, as a consequence of the granting of the benefits established in Law 986 of 2005, for public servants, who are victims of the crimes of kidnapping, hostage-taking and enforced disappearance, after the end of the period for which they were appointed. "

4.4. In addition, the Ministry stated that specifically, Article 5o presents additional disadvantages because it is intended to grant such benefits to the victims of the kidnapping, but without any limitation. This measure, stated the Ministry, " generates additional expenses calculated at $164.004 million, as it generates the obligation, on the part of its former employer, to grant the sum of the benefits to all the people who would have been ". He also pointed out that the measure does not establish who would be responsible for providing these benefits in the case of unemployed people or independent workers, taking into account the fact that public servants and private workers are Beneficiaries of Law 986 of 2005, it would be assumed that, for these purposes only, it would be the Nation.

4.5. Finally, the National Government notes that it should be taken into account that during the fourth debate, the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit expressed the possibility of accompanying the bill, but only at the event that (a) make certain clarifications to Articles 1 and 2, that Article 5 (o) will be removed, and in addition that it will be clarified that in the case of disabled ex-officials abducted during the inability, only the content of the The law does not apply retroactively from the promulgation of the law. However, these requests were not addressed by the House Plenary.

5. Insistence of the Congress of the Republic

5.1. The boards of the Senate of the Republic and the House of Representatives appointed as rapporteurs the report on the government objections to Senator Luis Elmer Arenas and representatives Jorge Humberto Mantilla and William Velez Mesa, those who submitted a joint report on 23 April 2010, in the sense of not accepting the objections of unconstitutionality formulated by the Government. The reasons they supported are the following:

5.2. The report argues that while Article 7or Law 819 of 2003 is an instrument of rationalisation of legislative activity, it "does not make the creative will of the law subject to a concept". " Notes that, then a correct interpretation of the standard in quotation is that according to which the concept of the Ministry should be heard by the Congress but sir that has binding force for the legislative body, because it would undermine the independence of the Congress and its autonomy of Legislative configuration, taking into account that almost every law implies disbursement of budgetary resources. Thus it concludes that based on the constitutional jurisprudence on the scope of article 7or Law 819 of 2003, it is inferred that the concept of the executive is an instrument of persuasion and conviction on members of Congress in application of the principle of harmonious collaboration between the organs of the State.

5.3. As for the bill under study, the report states that the Congress learned of its tax incidents, heard and valued the concept of the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit, but that in the exercise of the weight of public interests, it was preferred to give greater weight to the rights of those who have been victims of kidnapping since the value of human dignity is above any other budgetary consideration, in consideration of the article 5 of the Constitution in which the primacy of the inalienable rights of the person. Furthermore, he pointed out that the Congress could not accept any argument of economic rationality to introduce discriminatory treatment among victims of kidnapping, since the extension of the benefits already mentioned in the Law 986 from 2005 to families of persons abducted after the exercise of the charge, arises in compliance with the article 13 Superior.

6. Concept of the Attorney General of the Nation

6.1 In the legal opportunity provided, the Attorney General of the Nation, Dr. Alejandro Ordonez Maldonado, spoke of the government objections presented to Bill 086 of 2008 Senate, 366 of 2009. Chamber, by means of which benefits are granted to the families of the persons kidnapped after the exercise of their office. As the basis for this request, the following arguments were presented:

6.2. The Public Ministry explains that there is no doubt that the objectives that the project is intended to achieve, involve expenses, which is even recognized by the accidental commission charged with the study of the objections. But he warns that, despite the fact that, according to the report presented by that committee, Congress did analyze the objections made by the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit, nor the tax costs of the initiative, nor the source of additional income. generated for the financing of these, were included, as ordered by the organic law behind referred to, in the exhibition of motive, nor in the respective procedures.

6.3. He further indicated that it should be noted that, pursuant to the provisions of the third paragraph of Article 7or Law 819 of 2003, the Ministry of Finance and Credit Republic that " the effective implementation of this legislative initiative would generate additional expenditures from the resources of the nation that are not considered in the Fiscal Framework of the Medium Term or in the Framework of. Medium-term Expenditure. Consequently, the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit are allowed to issue a negative concept on the bill ... ".

6.4. In this way, he concluded: " the fiscal cost of the project was not explicit; as its funding was not; and, the Ministry of Finance's judgment, is also not compatible with the Fiscal Framework of the Medium Term.

A conclusion is imposed: Bill 086 of 2008 Senate, 366 of 2009 House, "by means of which benefits are granted to the families of the persons kidnapped after the exercise of their office", vulnera the article 7or Act 819 of 2003 and, consequently, the provisions of article 151 of the Political Constitution. Therefore, this Office will ask the Court to declare the above objections well founded. "

7. Constitutional Court considerations

7.1. Competition: This Corporation is competent to hear about government objections. inconstitutiona1ity presented by the President of the Republic against Bill 086 of 2008 Senate, 366 of 2009 Chamber, by means of which benefits are granted to the families of the persons kidnapped with Subsequent to the exercise of his office, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 167 and 241-8 of the Political Constitution.

7.2. Verification of the constitutionality of the processing of objections

As the constitutional case law has pointed out, " the examination of form in the framework of presidential objections should be limited to the processing of the objections themselves and not to the processing of the law objected to_[29]. The procedure for the approval of the law is therefore open to actions of unconstitutionality for vices so that they can be presented within the year following their enactment_[30]"._[31]

7.3. The processing of governmental objections and the insistence of the Congress of the Republic

7.3.1. Opportunity for objections

7.3.1.1. As outlined above, the draft law of the reference was discussed and approved in the first debate at the session of the First Commission of the Senate of the Republic, held on November 25, 2008_[32]. project was discussed and approved at the plenary session of the Senate of the Republic that took place on May 26, 2009, as stated in Act No. 54 of that date, pub1icad at the Congress Gazette number 570, 2009. For its part, the First Committee of the House of Representatives discussed and approved the bill during the session on November 24, 2009, which was contained in the 16th Act corresponding to that meeting, which is published in the i_aj">Congress Gazette number 1279, 2009, and then passed in the plenary session of that House, held on December 14, 2009_[33].

7.3.1.2. As was also stated above, through its own initiative dated December 16, 2009, received at the Administrative Department of the Presidency of the Republic on December 21, the same year, the Secretary General of the Senate of the Republic referred the bill to the 1resident of the Republic for executive sanction_[34].

7.3.1.3. By its own initiative received on December 30, 2009, the bill was returned by the National Government to the President of the Senate of the Republic, without the corresponding executive sanction, for objections of unconstitutionality_[35].

7.3.1.4. Pursuant to article 166 of the Political Constitution, the Government has six (6) business days_[36] and complete to return with objections any project that has no more than twenty articles. Bill No. 086 of 2008 Senate, 366 of 2009 House, has six (6) articles, so in application of the constitutional precept, the Government had up to six (6) working days to file objections.

7.3.1.5. The bill was received at the Presidency of the Republic on 21 December 2009. As it comes to full days, the 6-day term should start counting from December 22. The lapse for the filing of the objections would expire on December 30. Thus complying with the provisions of Article 166 Superior, as they were received by the Presidency of the Senate of the Republic on 30 December 2009.

Likewise, in compliance with the above and being within the constitutional term, the Presidency of the Republic of the Republic published the draft object at that date in the Official Journal number 47,578 of December 30, 2009 In effect, the full text of the objections is published to the portfolio 10 of that Journal.

7.3.1.6. Based on the above considerations, the Court concludes that the government objections to the draft law of the reference were timely and published.

7.3.2. Discussion and approval procedure for objections

7.3.2.1. As mentioned above, the text of the objections was received at the Presidency of the Senate of the Republic on 21 December 2009. It was published in the Congress Gazette number 19 of January 28, 2010. The sending of presidential objections to the Presidency of the Senate of the Republic to be studied by the plenaries offers no qualms of unconstitutionality, as has been admitted by this Corporation, " since it has been imposed since The Constitutional Court declared inexequible the apart from article 197 of the Law 5th of 1992 that obliged to return, not to the plenary, but to the permanent constitutional commission of the chambers, the objections partial to the bills "_[37].

7.3.2.2. By appointing the Senate and House boards, the accidental commission charged with making the study and issuing a concept on government objections was made up of Senator Luis Elmer Arenas and Representatives William Velez. Mesa and Jorge Humberto Mantilla.

7.3.2.3 The publication of the government objections report to the bill of reference in the Senate of the Republic and in the House of Representatives was made at the Congress Gacts numbers 152 of 23 April 2010 and 147 of April 23, 2010, respectively.

7.3.2.4. The announcement of the vote on the report of the presidential objections in the House of Representatives was made at the plenary session on April 28, 2010. This is stated in the Act number 237 of that same date, published in the Congress Gazette number 269 of May 28, 2010. The announcement text is the following_[38]:

" The following projects are announced for the Plenary Session of the day May 4 or for the next Plenary Session in which bills or legislative acts are debated, according to Legislative Act No. 01 of July 3, 2003, in its Article 8or: (...) Bill number 366 of 2009 Chamber, 086 of 2008 Senate ".

And at the end of the session it reads:

"As we already have the projects announced and not having the quorum decision, I allow myself to raise the Plenary corresponding to today and to convene for the next Tuesday at three in the afternoon."

7.3.2.5. In effect, the objections report to the House of Representatives was approved at the following session, Tuesday, May 4, 2010, as stated in the Act No. 238 of the same date, published in the Gazette of the Congress No. 299 of June 4, 2010_[39]. According to a substantiation report by the General Secretariat of the House of Representatives, the report was " considered and approved by the constitutionally required majority in the Nominal voting (...), as follows: By Yes: 841 by No: 0 "_[40]. Such approval was given in the following terms:

" Bill 366 2009 House, 086 2008 Senate, by means of which benefits are granted to the families of the persons kidnapped after the exercise of their office.

The objections report reads as follows:

Doctor

JAVIER CÁCERES LEAL

President

Senate of the Republic

EDGAR GOMEZ ROMAN

President

House of Representatives

Presidential Objections Report, Bill 366 of 2009 House, 086 of 2008 Senate, by means of which benefits are granted to the families of the persons abducted after the exercise of their office.

Respected Presidents:

Giving compliance to the designation made by the Board of Directors of the Senate of the Republic and the honorable House of Representatives, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 165, href="policy_constitution_1991_pr005.html#166"> 166 and 167 of the National Policy Constitution, and 196, 197, 198 and 199 of the 5th Act of 92, we pay close attention to the present report of presidential objections by unconstitutionality in the following terms:

Declare unfounded the objections of unconstitutionality presented by the Government to the draft of the reference.

Sign: William Velez Mesa and Jorge Humberto Mantilla, Representatives of the House; Luis Elmer Arenas, Senator of the Republic.

Mr President, the report of objections has been read.

Address of the session by the Presidency, Dr. Santiago Castro Gomez:

In consideration of the report read, its discussion opens, it announced that it will be closed, it is closed. Please open the register.

The General Secretariat reports, Dr. Flor Marina Daza:

The registration is opened to vote on the presidential objections report of Bill 366 of 2009 House, 086 of 2008 Senate, by means of which benefits are granted to the families of the kidnapped persons with after the exercise of his office.

The General Secretariat reports, Dr. Raul Avila:

Carlos Cuenca votes yes

Eduardo Benitez votes yes

Alvaro Pacheco votes yes

James Britto votes yes

Eduardo Lozano votes yes

Guillermo Santos votes yes.

The General Secretariat reports, Dr. Flor Marina Daza:

Lidio Garcia votes yes.

The General Secretariat reports Dr. Raul Avila:

Ismael Aldana votes yes

Ciro Rodriguez votes yes

Humberto Mantilla votes yes.

The General Secretariat reports, Dr. Flor Marina Daza:

Telesforo Pedraza votes yes.

The General Secretariat reports (Dr. Raul Avila):

Santiago Castro votes yes

Zamir Silva votes yes

German Reyes votes yes.

The General Secretariat reports, Dr. Flor Marina Daza:

Buenaventura Leon votes yes.

The General Secretariat reports (Dr. Raul Avila):

Gilberto Rondon votes yes

Constantino Rodriguez votes yes

Juan Carlos Granados votes yes

Juan Cordoba votes yes.

The General Secretariat reports, Dr. Flor Marina Daza:

Oscar Marin votes yes.

The General Secretariat reports (Dr. Raul Avila):

Gerardo Piamba votes yes

Gema Lopez votes yes

Tyrone Carvajal votes yes

Jaime Zuluaga votes yes.

The General Secretariat reports, Dr. Flor Marina Daza:

Faber Giraldo votes yes

Jorge Eduardo Casabianca votes yes.

The General Secretariat reports (Dr. Raul Avila):

Homer Giraldo votes yes

Julio Gallardo votes yes

Wilson Borja votes yes

Eduardo Perez Santos votes yes.

The General Secretariat reports, Dr. Flor Marina Daza:

Eduardo Benitez votes yes

Carlos Quintero votes yes

Simon Gaviria votes yes.

The General Secretariat reports, Dr. Raul Avila:

Alonso Acosta votes yes

Address of the session by the Presidency, Dr. Santiago Castro Gomez:

The record is closed. Please report the result of the vote.

The General Secretariat reports, Dr. Flor Marina Daza:

The record is closed with the following result:

By Yes: 86. By the No: 0

presidential objections report has been approved of Bill 366 of 2009 House, 086 of 2008 Senate, by means of which benefits are granted to the families of the kidnapped persons with subsequent to the exercise of his office_[41] (Room Refers).

7.3.2.6. The announcement of the vote on the report of the government objections in the Senate of the Republic was made at the plenary session of May 4, 2010. This is stated in Act No. 35 of that same date, published in the Congress Gazette number 280 of June 1, 2010_[42]. The text of the announcement is as follows:

" On the instructions of the Presidency and in accordance with the Legislative Act 01 of 2003, the Secretariat announces the projects to be discussed and approved in the next session.

Bills to debate and vote in the next session:

(...)

Report on objections, Bill 086 of 2008 Senate, 366 of 2009 House "_[43].

7.3.2.7. The report of objections filed with the Senate of the Republic was duly approved_[44] in session on May 11, 2010, as stated in the Minutes number 36 of the same date, published in Congress Gazette number 281 of June 1, 2010_[45]. The approval of the report was done in the following terms:

" Bill 086 of 2008 Senate, 366 of 2009 House, by means of which and grant benefits to the families of the persons kidnapped after the exercise of their office.

Read and closed the discussion of the report in which the Objections presented to Bill number 086 of 2008 Senate, 366 of 2009 House, are declared unfounded by unconstitutionality, the Presidency submits it to the consideration of the plenary and, in accordance with Legislative Act 01 2009, opens the vote and tells the Secretariat to open the electronic register to proceed to the roll call vote.

The Presidency closes the vote, and tells the Secretariat to close the register and report the outcome of the vote.

By Secretariat the following result is reported:

By Yes: 58

Total: 58

Nominal Vote on the Report of Objections of Bill 086 of 2008 Senate, 366 of 2009 House by means of which benefits are granted to the families of the kidnapped persons after the exercise of their office.

(...)

Consequently, has been approved the Objections Report to the 086 Bill 086 of 008 Senate 366 of 2009 Camera. "

7.3.2.8. The Constitutional Court finds that the reports on government objections were voted in accordance with the absolute majority required, given that both in the Senate and in the House they had the favorable vote of the majority of their members. members. This is done in accordance with the case law of the Court, according to which, for the approval of the reports on the presidential objections in the plenary of the legislative chambers, it is necessary to have an absolute majority. "That thesis was adopted in Judgment C-069 of 2004, when the Court held that the absolute majority was imposed in view of the fact that the object was returned to the Plenary for" second debate ", which imposed the own processing requirements (art. 167 C.P.)_[46]"_[47].

The previous position was reiterated in the C-985 2006_[48] and C-1040 Sentences_[49]".

7.3.2.9. Likewise, the Court finds that compliance with the formal requirements required for the announcement, the vote, certainly, in this respect, Article 8or the Legislative Act 01 of 2003 has been established. the following:

" No bill will be put to a vote in session other than that previously announced. The notice that a draft will be put to the vote will be given by the chair of each chamber or committee in session other than. the one in which 'the vote will be taken'.

According to the previous provision, and with the interpretation that has been made by the case law, the announcement to which she refers seeks to avoid the surprise vote of the bills, in order to ensure that the Congress knows about in advance the content of the cases to be decided in subsequent sessions_[50]. According to the Cote, the purpose of the announcement is " to allow the Congressmen to know in advance which bills or reports of presidential objections will be put to the vote, assuming full knowledge of them and avoiding, by They are surprised by bad votes "_[51]. Likewise, the Court has explained that 'the announcement' makes it easier for citizens and social organizations that have an interest in influencing the formation of the law and the fate of the law to exercise their rights to participate in politics (article 40 C. P.), in order to affect the outcome of the vote, which is important in order to effect the principle of participatory democracy (articles 1or 3or C.P.) "_[52].

The Court has pointed out that the content of Article 8or Legislative Act 01 of 2003 shows that the requirements of the notice are as follows:

1. The ad must be present in the vote of every bill.

2. The announcement must be given by the chair of the chamber or the committee in a separate session prior to the one in which the vote on the project is to be held.

3. The date of the vote must be true, i.e. determined or at least determinable.

4. A bill cannot be voted on in a session other than that for which_[53]has been announced.

In the case that takes its attention, the, Court finds that the announcements made for the vote of the governmental objections met the stated requirements.

7.3.2.10. As stated, the report on presidential objections was passed in the House on May 4, 2010, and in the Senate on May 11, 2010. Since the text of the report is identical, the Court finds the requirement of bicameral coincidence, imposed by constitutional article 167 :

" Article 167 (...) Except for the case where the project is objectionable as unconstitutional. In such an event, if the Cameras insist, the bill will move to the Constitutional Court so that she, within six days of the following decision, will decide on her exilibility. "

The higher standard requires matching in the congressional position over presidential objections, so this requirement is also understood to be fulfilled.

7.3.2.11. The constitutional jurisprudence has also indicated that Congress must deal with government objections within a period of less than two legislatures, in accordance with the requirement laid down in Article 162 constitutional, which confers the same term for the processing of the, bill. On the particular, the Court has held:

" The constitutional doctrine established by this Corporation regarding the limit, temporary that the Chambers have for the presentation of the insistences to the objections presented by the President of the Republic to a bill, has " The term with which the Congress of the Republic counts in order to rule on presidential objections cannot be in any case higher than the term for the formation of the law. In that sense, the Court has recently stated that ' [d] and compliance with article 162 above the presidential objections still draft law must be estimated or rejected by the Congress within two legislatures. It ended that it must be taken into account in addition to that of the first two legislatures that Congress had to issue the text that the president objected to. In short, an extensive interpretation of article 162 of the Constitution allows us to state that Congress has at most two legislatures to make a law, and two legislatures. additional to rule on the objections raised by the National Government_[54]"._[55]

The presidential objections to the reference project were published in the Official Journal number 47,578 of 30 December 2009. The reports on the presidential objections were approved by the House and Senate, on May 4, 2010 and May 11 of the same year, respectively. The reports were received at the Constitutional Court on May 21, 2010. All of the above indicates that the insistence of the Congress was produced in less than two legislatures, so this requirement is fulfilled.

7.3.2.12. As a last point, it should be noted that the constitutional jurisprudence has estimated that " the Congress ' insistence on presidential objections must meet a minimum of argumentative support. Without it being necessary to exhaust a thorough conviction about the reasons that lead the Congress to disagree 4e1 Government, the Court has said that it cannot advance a proper constitutionality study if the Chambers do not provide " [56]]trial elements that permit evidence of a legal opposition between the Congress and the President_[56]. Thus, the Chamber passes to verify whether this requirement of procedure, regarding the insistence of the Congress is supported by a minimum of support, is met at this opportunity.

7.3.2.13. In the case that takes its attention, the Court considers that in respect of the objections put forward by the government against Bill 086 of 2008 Senate, 306 of 2009 Chamber, " by means of which the benefits are granted to the "The insistence of the Congress is based on clear and sufficient arguments on the reasons why it considers the Government's objections to be unfounded. against the bill under study.

Certainly, as far as the Congress ' insistence on the objection is concerned, the Court has elements of judgment to verify that there is real opposition between Congress and the government, legally supported, in the on the constitutionality of the provisions. Indeed, the government considers that (i) the initiative violates article 7or Law 819 of 2003, because it is incompatible with the medium-term fiscal framework, which was warned by the Ministry of Finance and Public credit during the legislative process, and (ii) in particular, Article 5 of the project expands the benefits provided to all of the kidnapped officials, without limitation, either personal or temporary, which would have an effect negative on the public purse.

For its part, the Congress maintains that article 7or Law 819 of 2003 does not make the creative will of the law subject to a favorable concept of the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit. This, he points out, is an element of debate that Congress is obliged to hear without it having binding force for the 1egislative. It indicates that the concept of the Ministry is a government instrument of persuasion as a reflection of collaboration harmonica between the branches of public power. Thus, specifically in relation to the project under study, the Congress concluded that if it was aware of its fiscal incidents, however, it did, however, in weighing the public interests in conflict rights of the kidnapped and the budgetary burdens. preferred to give greater weight to the rights of those who have been victims of such crime.

Thus, the Court finds the requirement that the insistence of the Congress be supported by a minimum of argumentative support. In such a virtue, it happens to make the material examination of the objections.

7.4. Material analysis of the government objections presented to Bill 086 of 2008 Senate, 366 of 2009 House, by means of which benefits are granted to the families of the kidnapped persons with after the exercise of his office.

7.4.1. The legal problem to be studied by the Court:

7.4.1.1. As already stated, the National Government objected to the draft law of the reference as a violation of article 7or of Law 819 of 2003, founding its objection in two considerations: first, the To involve expenses that are not compared with the medium-term fiscal framework, a situation that the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit have timely warned during the legislative process.

Secondly, it says the statement of objections that the situation described above is aggravated by the provisions of Article 5 or that it extends the benefits provided to all the hostages, irrespective of whether they have been victims of the a crime prior to the entry into force of the law. Measure is that, according to the Government, it implies an even greater affectation to the public purse.

7.4.1.2. The Congress responds to these objections by stating that the concept of the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit provided for by Article 7or Law 819 of 2003 is neither binding nor binding on the legislature, that an interpretation to the contrary would infringe the separation of powers. He argues that this concept is a simple tool of persuasion that reflects the principle of harmonious collaboration between the branches of public power.

[passage] Also indicated, that in relation to the initiative under review, the Congress carried out a weighting between the defense of the rights of the kidnapped and the budgetary expenditures, concluding that the rights of the hostages should be given greater weight. victims of such a crime.

7.4.1.3. For its part, the fiscal view supports the government's objections, as soon as the Congress never studied the tax costs of the initiative, nor the source of additional income generated for the financing of its measures.

7.4.1.4. It is then observed that the only objection filed by the Government both against the initiative in general and against Article 5o, is the alleged infringement of Article 7or Law 819 of 2003.

7.4.1.5. Thus, the Plena Chamber will have to examine whether the draft law in general and, in particular, Article 5o, as well as its approval by the Congress of the Republic, violate the terms of the article 7or Law 819 of 2003, not having studied their tax incidents and their compatibility with the medium-term fiscal framework and, additionally, for allegedly not having addressed the unfavorable concept of the Ministry of Finance.

7.4.2. As a first measure, it is recalled that Law 819 of 2003 has an organic nature and therefore conditions the validity of the ordinary laws that develop the regulated issues, as it has been said in Constitutional_[57], both statutory and organic laws constitute a parameter of, constitutionality. Therefore, the ignorance of an organic law in the process of formation of the law and in its content produces the violation of article 151 of the Constitution and, for that reason, it can be declared inexequable.

Article 7or Act 819 of 2003 provides the following:

" Analysis of the tax impact of the rules. At all times, the tax impact of any bill, ordinance, or agreement, which mandates or grants tax benefits, must be made explicit and must be compatible with the Medium Term Fiscal Framework.

" For these purposes, the tax costs of the initiative and the source of additional income generated for the financing of the project must be included expressly in the explanatory statement and in the respective processing papers. that cost.

" The Ministry of Finance and Public Credit, at any time during the respective procedure in the Congress of the Republic, will have to render its concept in the face of the consistency of the provisions of the previous paragraph. In no case will this concept be in the way of the Medium-Term Fiscal Framework. This report will be published in the Congressional Gazette

" Government initiative bills, which raise additional expenditure or a reduction in revenue, must contain the corresponding substitute source for decreased expenditure or revenue increases, which will have to be be analyzed and approved by the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit.

"In the territorial entities, the procedure provided for in the preceding paragraph will be set before the respective Secretariat of Finance or who will do its own times."

7.4.2.1. The scope of the constitutional case law in relation to Article 7or Law 819 of 2003 and the Correlative obligations of Congress

Since 2004, the case law has been in charge of clarifying the scope of Article 7or Law 819 of 2003, on the occasion of several presidential objections proposed against projects approved in Congress. of the Republic.

Among the first statements dealing with the disposition are the C-1113 of 2004_[58], the C-729 statement of 2005_[59], C- 072 of 2006_[60] and C-929 of 2006_[61], in which the Corporation proceeded to study the objections raised by the President of the Republic for the infringement of the Article 7or Law 819 of 2003. On these occasions, the Court found the objections unfounded because the time the respective legislative initiatives were presented had not yet been dictated by the Medium-Term Fiscal Framework, established in Law 819 from 2003.

Subsequently, in Judgment C-474 of 2005_[62], the Court considered, on the basis of the principle of independence of the branches of the Public Power, that the failure of the Ministry of Finance of the obligations imposed on you by Article 7or Law 819 of 2003-does not imply the unconstitutionality of the Bill. In these terms, he said that " the Congress of the Republic constituted an autonomous branch of the Public Power, that the Congress of the Republic also had an initiative for the expenditure and that the fact that the Ministry of Finance had not fulfilled his duty to present a concept about the project could not nullify the work of the Congress. "

He added that " therefore, when by virtue of the law it is up to another branch of the public power or one of its officials to perform an act of its own, related to the processing of a bill, its not compliance cannot be an irregularity affecting the processing of the same. In fact, an omission by a minister of the executive branch in the legislative debate of a bill cannot end up being attributed to another branch of public power, as is the case in this case, since, if this consequence is accepted, it would be to ignore the autonomy of the Congress in the exercise of its legislative function and under the principle of separation of powers and with respect to the democratic principle ".

Likewise, in Case C-856 of 2006_[63], the Court noted that the requirements set out in Article 7or Law 819 of 2003 are applicable only to the bills that order spending or grant tax benefits.

Is in Statement C-502 of 2007_[64], in which the Court specified that the content of the provision indicated was a parameter of rationality of the legislative activity and a duty that was primarily in the Minister of Finance. In these terms, I consider providence:

" For all of the above, the Court considers that the first three incites of Article 7or of Law 819 of 2003 must be understood as parameters of rationality of the legislative activity, and as a charge that the Ministry of Finance initially has to charge, once the Congress has valued, with the information and the tools it has at its disposal, the tax implications of a certain bill. This means that they are tools to improve legislative work.